User talk:Frederic77

March 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from CasinoWebScripts, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with CasinoWebScripts. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. AllyD (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Online casino. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me then why does the article Online casino has so many links to personal forums such as www.casinolistings.com or www.wizardofodds.com ? I simply made a change towards the website of the developer, Casino Web Scripts, where it says more clear that the casino owner can have a different "Play for Fun" and "Play for Real" percentage. That is all the information I wanted to appear on WikiPedia. Why is a link from casinolistings allowed, and one from developer's website is not allowed? Please justify.talk
 * If other inappropriate links are present on the page, by all means remove them, or start a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think my link has better credibility because the information is directly from the developer website, and not from a forum where anybody can write whatever he wants. I am an occasional writer on WikiPedia, as you probably have noticed, but I know the difference between a SPAM link and an appropriate link. I took the information right from its source, and I have not used a forum as intermediary, to promote that forum. If this was the case, why did you not remove those previous links that link to forums? And why are you deleting my link that points to the main source of the information. I think you should leave my link how it is, or if you want to do something useful, then open yourself a discussion about these so many spam links towards forum websites, because you have more authority than I do. I would like to know where it says that changing a link that links to a 3rd party forum into the link that links to the main source is harmfull to WikiPedia. You said it yourself that the links are nofollow, so how can you talk about promotion then?talk

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Your block today was based on your full history of editing, including the deleted edits which I also reviewed. From that review, your editing history on Wikipedia clearly indicates that your intent on Wikipedia is promotional in nature, which goes contrary to the goal of building an encyclopedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Frederic77, nobody has disagreed with you that the forum link you replaced was inappropriate. But the text which was sourced by the forum link was also inappropriate, as it promoted a specific company, and it had been inserted into the article fairly recently. So there was no need for a source; rather the text was removed, as you must have noticed when you reinserted it. --bonadea contributions talk 16:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bonadea, please check the history and see that I did not add a word with promotional content. I made some changes to the previous version by adding some NON-promotional text, then I changed the link. You opposed to that, so I reverted the changes, because I don't understand why just now, after a few months you wanted to remove the text and why nobody removed it from the start when the initial changes were made. If that link stayed there for so long, why nobody has been punished? Why only now after I make the edit, somebody notices this and bans me "indefinitely"? I think that the original link was ok, from the point of view of other admins, because nobody opposed at that time, but not from your point of view. So now that I tried to oppose to what you said, somebody bans me "indefinitely"? Really, why did the link towards the original link stayed there for such a long time?Frederic77
 * It stayed probably because no-one noticed it. There's no system of reviewing all edits and rubber stamping 'approved' on some. Now, someone has noticed and has done something. That's how we work. Sometimes, on a less often read article, something can stay for months. I found one five years ago, and removed it - and now I'm an admin here... Peridon (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I was monitoring several articles related to Online Casinos, including this, and I tried to do something about it to improve the article. I noticed many attempts of an user to add this paragraph with "Fraudulent online casino operator" and it was rejected by many admins, and after a while it went through. Then someone added "Casino Web Scripts" under that paragraph and nobody rejected it. So I thought that this is allowed. My goal was to improve the article, and I noticed that talk tried to remove the content, so I opposed to that, because I thought someone already approved everything in the past and if talk wanted to argue, then he should argue with whoever posted that content initially, not with me, and cause me to get banned. I DID NOT ADD ANY PROMOTIONAL CONTENT. I just opposed a change, and for that I got banned it seems.Peridon, if you are an admin here, then I suggest you do something about this article, because it is spammed with many links towards forums. Frederic77
 * 1) The content was inappropriate. It is a reasonable belief that if something is unhallenged it is "approved", but as you now know, that is not the case. Curiously, the same content has just been re-added by an anonymous IP editor. It is still inappropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of who adds it. 2) According to the block notice, you were not blocked solely based on your edits today. 3) I had nothing to do with your block, and I sincerely hope that you will come to an understanding why the edits you have made have been inappropriate and that you will subsequently get unblocked in order to edit constructively. Thanks. --bonadea contributions talk 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)